Thomas v. Orange Regional Medical Center

90 A.D.3d 479, 933 N.Y.2d 868

Opinion

Defendants’ moving papers were deficient since the addresses of the two proposed nonparty witnesses who would purportedly be inconvenienced by a trial in Bronx County were not provided. Nor was the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony detailed (see Jacobs v Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP, 9 AD3d 299 [2004]; Nolan v Mount Vernon Hosp., 172 AD2d 368 [1991]).

We note however that, contrary to Supreme Court’s finding, defendant’s motion was not untimely. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Thomas v. Orange Regional Medical Center, 90 A.D.3d 479, 933 N.Y.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

90 A.D.3d 479 (Thomas v. Orange Regional Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jacobs v. Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP
9 A.D.3d 299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Nolan v. Mount Vernon Hospital
172 A.D.2d 368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)